Universal Journal of Educational Research 4(2): 392-398, 2016
org
DOI: 10.13189/ujer.2016.040211
Using Constructivist Teaching Strategies to Enhance
Academic Outcomes of Students with Special Needs
Joseph P. Akpan1, Lawrence A. Beard2,*
1
Department of Secondary Education, Jacksonville State University, USA
2
Curriculum and Instruction, Jacksonville State University, USA
Copyright © 2016 by authors, all rights reserved. Authors agree that this article remains permanently open access under the
terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International License
Abstract Over the past decades many teaching strategies
have been proposed by various educators to improve
education of all students including students with special
needs. No single one of these proposed teaching strategies
meets the needs of all students. The new Every Student
Succeeds Act, successor to No Child Left behind Law, which
transfers oversight from federal level back to states, could be
a benefactor for constructivism and special education.
Educators are also optimistic that the new Every Student
Succeeds Act will be better for vulnerable students in special
education because it will introduce more flexibility in how
individual states carry out evaluation of students and
teachers. In addition, it will provide more flexibility on
testing and adapt the curriculum to student’s needs. It would
further reduce time and energy for students preparing for
standardized tests or statewide exams. It will also end
“Adequate Yearly Progress”-a measure that required schools
to show test score gains. Constructivist teaching philosophy
is all about accepting student autonomy where student
thinking drives the lessons, where dialogue, inquiry, and
puzzlement are valued and assessing student learning is in
the context of teaching. It helps teachers to draw on new
ideas as they make decisions about which teaching
techniques are most appropriate for all students to learn.
Now is the time to revisit the great debate of constructivism
versus teacher-centered instruction and special education.
Time has come to effectively explore our educational system
and examine the core unit of the whole enterprise, the
textbook, the classroom, a setting that is often dominated by
teacher talk and students listen.
Keywords Constructivist Teaching Strategies, Student
with Special Needs, Academic Outcomes, Students with
Learning Disabilities, Positive Learning, Policy Makers,
Indirect Instruction, Every Student Succeeds Act
1. Introduction
American politicians, educators and lobbyists have been
http://www.hrpub.
expressing concern over the education of students with
special needs. School officials are calling on states to
transform post-secondary educator preparation in order to
better serve all learners, including those with special needs.
Recently, a bipartisan group of lawmakers voted 85 to 12 to
approve large-scale sweeping legislative changes successor
to No Child Left behind Law to the Every Student Succeeds
Act. These sweeping changes would not only end a
controversial federal policy which has governed education
for more than a decade, but will become a benefactor for
special education and student-centered teaching strategies.
This article addresses how the new Every Student Succeeds
Act affects special education as well as being a benefactor to
student-centered teaching strategies. In addition, this article
proposes that the large-scale education changes would
benefits constructivism than before. The article furthermore
proposes that the sweeping changes will put to an end the
“teacher-shoptalk”: lessons that are predominantly textbooks
oriented the devaluing of all students thinking, tests that
drive curriculum testing, and overemphasize curriculum
mastery. It is time for the lawmakers to begin to make a
difference in how students learn by encouraging
student-to-student interaction, initiating lessons that foster
cooperative learning, and providing opportunities for
students to be exposed to interdisciplinary curriculum.
However, students must understand that they are ultimately
responsible for their own learning within a learning
atmosphere that includes all the aforementioned strategies
(Duke, Harper, & Johnston, 2013[1]; Tracey & Morrow,
2012[2]; Hashim & Kasbolah, 2012[3]; Ultanir, 2012[4];
Brown, 2003[5]; Hakverdi-Can, & Sonmez, 2012[6].
Every student receives and processes information in
different ways: Some learn by listening and sharing ideas,
some learn by thinking through ideas, some learn by testing
theories, some learn by synthesizing content and context, and
some learn by reasoning logically and intuitively. Learning
disabilities are a group of disorders manifested by difficulties
in acquisition and use of listening, speaking, reading, writing,
reasoning, mathematical abilities or of social skills (National
Institute for Literacy, 2002, p. 2) [7]. These disorders are
presumed to exist due to a central nervous system
 Universal Journal of Educational Research 4(2): 392-398, 2016
dysfunction. Legislators, policy makers, school principals,
counselors and post-secondary educators believe that the
time has come to reform our current teaching strategy for all
students, including students with special needs. The concept
of constructivism has extended beyond research and into the
American classroom. It has also been the subject of present
exploration by academics (Jia, 2010; [8] Bay, Bagceci &
Cetin, 2012 [9]; Brandon & All, 2010 [10]; Steele, 2005
[11]). One of the most unique and challenging issues that
parents, teachers, school administrators, politicians, and
philosophers have debated is how to enhance the academic
learning experience and opportunities for all students (Steele,
2005 [11]; Brandon & All, 2010 [10]; Snowman, McCown,
& Biehler, 2009 [12]; Sultan, Woods, & Koo, 2011 [13];
Ultanir, 2012 [4]; Koh, Chai & Tsai, 2014[14].
Misconceptions on how students construct knowledge and
how teachers should deliver instruction in our nation’s
schools currently exist. These include lessons dominated by
expository methodology in which the teacher is the expert.
Using the expository teaching, students are viewed as “blank
slate” onto which information is etched by the teacher. The
teacher plays videos to wipe away instructional time, assigns
meaningless tasks for lessons which are predominantly
textbook oriented. Moreover they discredit student thinking,
and overemphasize curriculum mastery. These strategies are
not helping students construct meaning in the classroom
because students are not viewed as thinkers with emerging
theories about the world they live. It is time educators begin
to make a difference in how students learn by encouraging
student-to-student interaction, curricular activities rely
heavily on primary sources of data and manipulative
materials, initiating lessons that foster cooperative learning,
and providing opportunities for students to be exposed to
interdisciplinary curriculum. Students would then be
responsible for their own learning within an environment
that includes all the aforementioned teaching methods.
This article calls for all educators including teachers of
students with special needs to begin to make important
paradigm shifts in the way they teach and care about students
learning. Teachers must abandon the old traditional teaching
model in which curriculum is presented part to whole, with
emphasis on basic skills. In the constructivist classroom,
curriculum is presented whole to part with emphasis on big
concepts. These best teaching practices influence and
enhance how students think, act, demonstrate, and exhibit
knowledge. In the constructivist classroom, simple or
complex curricular activities serve to bolster relevance in
students and teachers generally behave in an interactive
manner, mediating the environment for students learning.
Constructivist instructions are practical in nature; focus on
real-life applications that might be used to refocus the
process of educational reform. This method of instruction
suggests new norms, culture of teaching, and structures for
classroom practices in the 21st century education.
Furthermore, this article will acquaint educators with the
philosophical roots of the constructivist model and enable
393
them with the tool to implement this model in their
classrooms. All educators should encourage students to
come to class with expectancy and excitement, essentially to
learn by doing. Critiques of constructivism think that the
model is old wine in the new bottle of education or a weak
concept that does not provide students with lifelong learning.
This paper asserts that constructivism is new wine in a new
bottle; every post-secondary educator must be encouraged to
jump on this bandwagon to provide all students with a unique
and life-long learning experience. Teachers must come
together to understand the idea that knowledge is constructed
by individuals differently and is a product of the human mind.
All learners need teaching strategies which arouse the unique
interest and curiosity to learn. The use of real-life
applications and asking stimulating open-ended questions
enhance the learning experience for all students. Today, the
challenges of teaching a diverse student population are at the
forefront of all education initiatives nationwide. The use of
constructivist teaching model can help teachers meet some
learning challenges of our students with special needs and
therefore bridge the achievement gap in the 21st century. It is
the most effective teaching strategy that works well in an
inclusive classroom, as learning begins with students
understanding of a subject and is developed by participation
in the realistic and meaningful learning experiences
(Snowman, et., 2009 [12]; Ultanir, 2012 [4]; Koh, Chai &
Tsai, 2014[14]; Hashim & Kasbolah, 2012[3]; Sultan,
Woods, & Koo, 2011 [13].
2. Legislative Changes and Special
Education
The current legislative act that revises No Child Left
behind Law is a breakthrough to special education and
constructivism. The sweeping changes would affect how
schools are judged, and would eliminate a deadline for
academic proficiency and streamline students’ annual testing
regime if administered correctly. It can end controversial
federal policy that has governed education for decades and
restore much control to local districts and schools. The
successor to No Child Left behind Act would end the
expository methodology view of teaching and learning,
which claimed that knowledge, is discovered through the
manipulation of objects or acquired from others when
learners listen to what teachers say. Now is the time to
revisit the long standing debate of constructivism versus
teacher-centered instruction for special education. The new
Every Student Succeeds Act will be better for vulnerable
students in special education because it provides more
flexibility on testing. It also ends “Adequate Yearly
Progress” a measure that required schools to show test score
gains. Preschool development grants for low-income
children and an arts education fund are included. Experts
claimed that Arts education is more construcvist than
practicing for the high stakes test (Koh, Chai & Tsai,
394 Using Constructivist Teaching Strategies to Enhance Academic Outcomes of Students with Special Needs
2014[14]; Sultan, Woods, & Koo, 2011 [13].The new Every
Student Succeeds Act will stop the practice of putting
multiple student subgroups (students with disabilities and
low-income students, for example) into “supersubgroup”-a
practice that can mask inequities. Every Student Succeeds
Act gives schools more local control over curriculum that
individual districts will now move toward more
constructivist teaching methods versus teaching to the test
(Kirp, D. L. 2015[37]. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/referen
ce/timestopics/subjects/n/no_child_left_behind_act/index.ht
ml
3. Constructivist Teaching Model
In very simple terms, people construct their own
understandings of the world in which they live. Teachers
constantly search for new strategies to help them understand
and connect to their past or present experiences. As a
function of conventional wisdom, we know that some people
are good, some are bad, some are more complex than others,
etc. These are all lessons from reflection and interactions
with people.
Constructivism is a teaching model not a theory.
Essentially, it is a model or metaphor of how people learn or
how learning takes place (Von Glasersfeld, 1989 [15];
Cobern, 1995; [16]). It justifies the putting together of new
ideas by interpreting new experiences in light of prior
knowledge so that the new ideas come to make sense to the
learner (Cobern, 1995 [16]). The strengths of constructivism
lie in the construction of knowledge and what that means for
students and teachers. Since knowledge cannot be
transferred from one individual to another like a commodity,
the role of the teacher as knowledge giver in the classroom
becomes moot. Educators must accept the fact that
knowledge is constructed in action and must be constructed
by individual knowers; instruction must be
student-dominated where teachers function as facilitators.
Baker & Piburn (1997) [17] further claim that knowledge is
built in social contexts; pedagogy must encourage
student-to-student interactions and collaboration. It is a
well-known fact that knowledge construction is strongly
influenced by prior experience and learners make sense of
the world by synthesizing new experiences into what they
have previously come to understand in their daily life
(Brooks & Brooks, 1993; [18] Ultanir, 2012; [4] Steele, 2005
[11]. In other words each learner must construct meaning for
oneself and that the only learning that can take place is that
which is connected to the individual’s already-existing
knowledge, experiences, or conceptualizations (Von
Glasersfeld, 1989[15]). This implies that learning involves
negotiation and interpretation. According to Von Glasersfeld,
(1989[15]), what children learn is not a copy of what they
observe in their immediate environments but comes from the
result of their own thinking, reflection and processing
information (Von Glasersfeld, 1989; [15] Steele, 2005; [11]).
A constructivist teaching model suggests that “as we
experience something new, we internalize it through our past
experience or knowledge constructions we have previously
established” (Crowther, 1997, p. 3; [19] Steele, 2005 [11]).
The primary job of a teacher is to enable children to think
out-of the-box by making their own connections that result in
valid internalized meanings unique to them. In this case, the
teacher leads the children through exploratory activities that
enable them to investigate on their own and come to their
own conclusions as to what is happening in the immediate
environment (Martin, 2003; [20] Von Glasersfeld, 1989
[15]). Penner (2001) [21] argues that, “learning activities
must begin by considering the role of student current
knowledge, how knowledge is constructed, and the role of
the activities in building knowledge” (p. 3). In other words,
individuals construct their own new understandings through
the interactions of their existing experiences with whatever
they come into contact with, making learning a social
activity which engages the teacher as facilitator, mentor, and
co-explorer who encourages learners to question, challenge
and formulate their own ideas and conclusions (Ultanir, 2012;
[4] Brooks & Brooks, 1993; [18]).
The general consensus among educators is that what a
person knows is not a function of detached observation but
rather created through interaction with their world view and
that knowledge and reality are subjective in nature (Fosnot,
1989; [22] Larson & Keiper, 2007; [23] Brooks & Brooks,
1993; [18] Bransfor, Brown & Cocking, 2000; [24]
Snowman, et al., 2009 [12]). A typical constructive
classroom environment is tasks oriented and designed to
enhance hands-on and minds-on learning for all students
similar to those encountered in the real world. This type of
learning environment should focus on authentic tasks similar
to what people see in every day practice similar to on-the-job
experiences that would benefit all students (Cognition and
Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1990; Larson & Keiper,
2007 [23].
A constructivist teacher would have his or her classroom
focus on real life problem solving, problem-based learning
(PBL), independent investigation, and the pursuit of personal
interests, simulation, discussion collaborative learning,
think-pair share, and the utilization of higher-order thinking
skills. Research studies in cognition, authentic learning, and
student engagement support claims that student-centered
teaching is a beneficial teaching strategy for all students,
including students with special needs (Brooks & Brooks,
1993; [18] Larson & Keiper, 2007 [23].
4. Evidence Supporting Constructivism
Learners will be able to control their own learning. Some
educators are extremely optimistic that the new Every
Student Succeeds Act will open a new door for special
education and students with special needs. The power and
sanctity of the curriculum and the subordination of students
own emerging concepts are profound concerns of
constructivism. Many students struggle to understand
 Universal Journal of Educational Research 4(2): 392-398, 2016
concepts in isolation, to learn parts without seeing wholes, to
make connections where they see only disparity, and to
accept as reality what their perceptions question. For smart
students, success in school has very little to do with true
understanding, and much to do with coverage of the
curriculum. In most schools, the curriculum is held as
absolute, and teachers are not allowed to make changes even
when students do not clearly understand important concepts.
The current new Every Student Succeeds Act will make sure
that teachers are not reticent to adapting the curriculum to
students’ needs; the school responsibility is to view
transcripts of those students who have difficulty
understanding the unchanged curriculum as slow or disabled.
These students can be removed from the mainstream classes,
provide remedial instruction, or differentiate the instruction.
In many school districts throughout the nation, students
spend a good deal of time preparing for standardized tests or
statewide exams. The debate that frames the current Every
Student Succeeds Act will end all the helpless testing. We
must set standards for our own professional practice and free
students from the anti-intellectual training that occurs under
the banner of test preparation. The current Every Student
Succeeds Act calls on educators, school teachers and
education professionals to adopt student-centered teaching
strategy and successfully prepare students for their lives by
understanding and honoring the dynamics of learning. In
addition, education professionals must recognize that for
students, schooling must be a time of curiosity, exploration,
and inquiry, and memorizing information must be
subordinated to learning how to find information to solve
real life problems (Brooks, & Brooks, 1999[18]. Students
experiencing difficulty understanding the lesson or who do
not comply with directions might need the teacher to make
sure directions are clear, concrete, use fewer words, increase
wait time for full compliance. Teachers must physically
show students directions, ask the students to repeat it by
using Say See Do teaching strategy, so that the student
knows what is required to do. These are different ways
constructivist teachers can help all students understand and
increase their full participation and mask inequities in the
classroom (Koh, Chai & Tsai, 2014[14]; Sultan, Woods, &
Koo, 2011 [13]; Von Glasersfeld, Watson (2001) [15];
Battenfeld & Crowford (2015[39]. http://www.truth-out.org
/opinion/item/34080-every-student-Succeeds-act-still-leaves
-most-vulnerable-kids-behind
This truth lies at the heart of the constructivist approach to
education. This shift in teaching will enable teachers to
develop and implement best classroom practices and
negotiate the lesson to make sure that students construct
knowledge. Individual students will construct meaning
differently. Every Student Succeeds Act values all students
and encourages learners to control their own learning. This
new legislative act is capable of shifting our priorities from
ensuring that all students learn the same concepts to ensuring
that teachers carefully analyze students’ understandings of
the concepts to customize their teaching approaches is
important step in the new every Student Succeeds education
395
reform Act that will results in increased learning.
Educators must come to realize that knowledge cannot be
passed intact from a teacher or book to a learner, nor is it
simply discovered in the real world. All students must
construct new knowledge for themselves. Instruction guided
by the constructivist learning method enhances student
engagement learning. This view of knowledge construction
in action is called constructivism. In the constructive
perspective, new knowledge is always based on the prior or
existing knowledge that learners bring to learning situations.
Students take in information from many sources, but in
building their own knowledge, they connect information to
prior knowledge and experiences, organize it, and construct
meaning for them. What learners already know influences
what they attend to, how they organize input, and how they
are able to integrate new constructions to expand their
knowledge bases (Brooks, & Brooks, 1999 [18]. The new
Every Student Succeeds Act passed by the U.S. legislations
this year is an attempting to improve the civil rights of
students with special needs.
All learners are different in many ways. Watts and Pope
(1989) [25], emphasized that persons differ from each other
in their ways of construction of knowledge; meaning
individuals interpret the world around them differently
through their own world view rather than being a passive
recipient of another individual’s knowledge or thinking. The
rationales of adopting constructivist model to enhance
education of all students are twofold: first, this model allows
educators to learn about their own learners, which gives rise
to better tailored activities promoting learning by doing
(Watts & Pope, 1989 [25]). Secondly, the learner has the
opportunity to think and rethink about their own creativity.
Teachers must enable students to think critically. As a
student’s ideas change, their knowledge increases. The
teacher facilitates this change by interacting with students in
positive ways such as asking questions, building appropriate
challenges and experiences, and offering new ways of
thinking. (Watts & Pope, 1989 [25]). Steele (2005) [11]
states that students with special needs will benefit most from
the constructivist model because of their difficulty in
adapting from the classroom to more interactive settings
according to Snowman, et al., 2009 [12].
Teachers should encourage students to express their
problems and then facilitate ways to aid students with
solutions to their problems by using what they already know
to go beyond what they already think. When educators work
with students with special needs, guided discovery learning
(GDL) becomes very effective. The goal of GDL is to teach
students to be independent problem solvers, to learn the
generic steps to scientific inquiry and engage in logical
thinking. (McLeskey, Rosenberg & Westling, 2010 [26]).
Von Glasersfeld (1989) [15] “described knowledge as
something actively built up from within by a thinking person,
and social interactions among students as learners is the core
of building knowledge as individuals” (Von Glasersfeld,
1989) [15]. In support of Von Glasersfeld, Watson (2001)
396 Using Constructivist Teaching Strategies to Enhance Academic Outcomes of Students with Special Needs
[15] stated that student learning is a shared social activity,
and should be part and parcel of classroom instruction.
Furthermore, according to Watson, the constructivist model
encourages all students, including special needs to develop a
sense of autonomy and initiative they might not otherwise
develop in an expository classroom. Educators should
encourage students to express their ideas to visualize the
relationships between ideas and big concepts, and by doing
so, develop problem solving skills. The major responsibility
for today’s educators should focus on providing a realistic
learning environment for their students by modeling, through
experimentation, leading questions and scaffolding to elicit
student’s knowledge.
5. Evidence against Constructivism
Several theorists including teachers and administrators
have rebelled against constructivism. Some called it
propaganda, disastrous fad, teaching strategies with low
intellectualism, colorful and jazzy drill and practice ways of
instruction (Hayes, 2012[27]; Mayer, 2004[28]; Kirschner et
al., 2006[29]; Clements & Batista, 2009[30]. In addition,
some advocates explained failures not because of the
methods is at fault, but because these educational methods
require a great deal of expertise and have not always been
implemented well in actual classroom and this doesn’t refute
the message, only the implementation (Clements & Batista,
2009 [30]; Marzano, 2011[31]; Tobias & Duffy, 2009[32].
Those who argued against constructivist teaching fail to
understand it roots and principle. Constructivist methods
were simply developed because the nation recognized that
our students were not being educated to live in our new
information society, this is why the new Every Student
Succeeds Act would make sure that our students are
educated to their full potential. Constructivist teaching and
learning are based on students constructing their own
knowledge and understanding through their own activity. By
doing so, they can make connections between the new
knowledge and previous activity. Those in support of
constructivist approach say that students perform higher than
those students who were taught using the traditional methods.
Also, those students who taught using constructivist methods
were able to answer standard procedural questions
conceptual questions and critical questions outperform those
who were taught using direct instruction (Kain,2003[33];
Boaler, 2001[34]; Kirschner, 2014[29]; Rowman &
Littlefeld, 2015[40]. Retrieved from: http://betrayed-whyed
ucationisfailing.blogspot.com/2012/04/has-constructivism-i
ncreased-special.html
6. Recommendations
This paper makes many recommendations for those who
opposed constructivist principle. They should make all
efforts to relay the necessary information and then help
students make connections to the real world. Since more
teachers do not have constructivist backgrounds more
teacher extensive training and professional development on
how to teach using constructivist methods are needed.
Students, parents and teachers are part of the Every Student
Succeeds Act. There is no doubt that constructivism has a
place in the American classroom as well as absolute flaws
and professional development training for teachers and
administrators are needed. All educators must be trained on
the constructivist teaching methods in order to make Every
Student Success Act a success. A balanced approach to these
recommendations is to put the student first. Teachers must
make sure that students are taught necessary skills, more
problem-based instructions and how to help students build
on prior knowledge. Administrators must equally make
funding available to train teachers across all school districts
and encourage the support of non-teaching staff to make
constructivist teaching a reality, no matter one’s opinion on
constructivism.
For those students with neurological-based behavior
(NBB), such as Learning Disability (LD), Attention-Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHA), Sensory Integration
Dysfunction (SID), Bipolar Disorder (BD), Fetal Alcohol
Spectrum Disorder (FAS), etc., in which the brain’s
informational processing capability has been compromised,
teachers must remain positive. Positive attitudes can greatly
improve the quality of service a teacher provides to students
with NBB and their families. Teachers must use fewer words
and tell students what to do to fix mistakes. Stand close to the
students and congratulate them when they begin to comply.
The shifting of interaction maybe difficult for NBB students,
and Rees and Skimore (2008[35] found acquired brain injury
students could Succeeds at one task while ignoring another;
they could also Succeeds at completing a task, but would not
understand why or contribute to their learning in terms of
building concepts. Educators dealing with these students
must comply with them by making directions clear, provide
concrete, and consistent feedback. Using fewer words,
increasing wait time for compliance, physically showing
directions, and asking the student to repeat the directions and
show the teacher what they are required to do. These are
ways teachers can help students with NBB increase their
participation in the classroom and enjoy school (Watson,
2001[36]; U. S. Congress. (1988 [38].
7. Conclusions
In summary, constructivism is a model of how students
learn and how learning takes place. The student is always
active when learning takes place. The central focus is that
knowledge is constructed by individual knower’s; therefore,
instruction must be student centered. In addition, knowledge
is built in social contexts; pedagogy must encourage
student-to-student interactions. Furthermore, knowledge
construction is strongly influenced by prior experience;
students must be treated as individuals. No one’s knowledge
 Universal Journal of Educational Research 4(2): 392-398, 2016
is an accurate reflection of reality; there is room always for
discussion and critical thinking. Many promising proposals
have been put forth in the past decades to address the issues
surrounding students’ construction of knowledge. Not a
single proposal met all student needs. While these are good
intentions, these proposals don’t quite go deep enough to
help all students construct knowledge. It promotes learning
through experience in an environment that involves the “real
world” and offers meaningful, personally interesting
challenges. Moreover it requires active learning, provides
opportunities to solve real world problems, answer real
questions, address real needs, offers the student an
opportunity to perform as a expert or professional in their
chosen field. Approaching instruction from the constructivist
continuum reaches a broader range of students and increases
comprehension and self-confidence in all students, teaching
students to think for themselves, ask questions and seek
answers. The usage of multiple approaches and perspectives
when problem solving are vital to the success of all students
in American classrooms.
REFERENCES
[1] Duke, B., Harper, G., & Johnston, M. (2013). Constructivism
as a digital age learning theory. The International HETL
Review, Special Issue, 4-13.
[2] Tracy, D. H., & Morrow, L. M.(2012). Lenses on reading: an
introduction to theories and models. New York: The Guilford
Press.
[3] Hashim, M., & Kasbolah, M. (2012). Application of
Needham’s five phase constructivism model in (civil,
electrical and mechanical) engineering subject at technical
secondary school. Journal of Education and Learning, 1(1),
Retrieved from Questia.
[4] Ultanir, E. (2012). An epistemological glance at the
constructivist approach: constructivist learning in Dewy,
Piaget, and Montessori. International Journal of Instruction,
5(2), 195-212.
[5] Brown, K. L. (2003). From teacher-centered to
learning-centered curriculum: improving learning in diverse
classrooms. New York, NY: Routledge.
[6] Hakverdi-Can, M. & Sonmez, D. (2012). Learning how to
design a technology supported inquiry-based learning
environment. Science Education International, 23(4),
338-356.
[7] National Institute for Literacy (NIFL). (2002). Adults with
learning disabilities: definitions and issues. Retrieved
September 7, 2015, from
http://www.nifl.gov/nifl/id/archive/definition.htm.
[8] Jia, Q. (2010). A brief study on the implication of
constructivist teaching theory on classroom teaching reform
in basic education, 3(2), 197-199.
[9] Bay, E., Bageeci, B., & Cetin, B. (2012). The effects of social
constructivist approach on the learners problem solving and
397
metacognitive levels. Journal of Social Science, 8(3),
343-348.
[10] Brandon, A. F., & All, A. C. (2010). Constructivism theory
analysis and application to curricula. Nursing Education
Perspectives, 31(2), 89.
[11] Steele, M. M. (2005). Teaching students with learning
disabilities: Constructivism or behaviorism? Current Issues in
Education [Electronic-version] 8(10). Available:
http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume8/number10/.
[12] Snowman, J., McCown, R., Biehler, R. (2009). Psychology
applied to teaching (12th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
[13] Sultan, W. H., Woods, P. C., & Koo, A.(2011). A
constructivist approach for digital learning: Malaysian school
case study. Educational Technology & Society, 14(4),
149-150.
[14] Koh, J. H., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C. (2014). Demographic
factors, TPACK constructs, and teachers perceptions of
constructivist-Oriented TPACK. Educational Technology &
Society, 17(1), 186. Retrieved from Questia.
[15] Von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of
knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80, 121-140.
[16] Cobern, W. (1995). Constructivism for science teachers, 6(3).
Science Education International, 6(3).
[17] Baker, D., & Piburn, M. (1997). Constructing science in
middle and secondary classrooms. Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
[18] Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1999). In search of
understanding: the case for constructivist classrooms.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
[19] Crowther, D. T. (1997). The constructivist zone: Editorial.
Electronic Journal of Science Education, 2(2).
http://unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse/ejsev2n2ed.html.
[20] Martin, D. J. (2003). Elementary science Methods: A
constructivist Approach 3nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson
Education, Allyn & Bacon.
[21] Penner, D. E. (2001). Cognition, computers, and synthetic
science: Building knowledge and meaning through modeling.
Review of Research in Education, 25(2000-2001), 1-35.
[22] Fosnot, C. T. (1989). Inquiring teachers, enquiring learners.
New York: Teachers College Press. …
[23] Larson, B. E., & Keiper, T. A. (2007). Instructional strategies
for middle and high school. Taylor & Francis Group: Oxon
OX 144RN.
[24] Branford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.).
(2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and
school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
[25] Watts, M., Pope, M. (1989). Thinking about thinking,
learning about learning: Constructivism in physics education.
Physics Education, [Electronic version] 24(6), 326-331.
Retrieved June 16, 2015 from Electronic Journal Center.
[26] McLesky, J., Rosenberg, M. & Westling, D. (2012). Inclusion:
Effective Practices for All Students (2nd Ed). Old Tappan, NJ:
Pearson, 2012.
398 Using Constructivist Teaching Strategies to Enhance Academic Outcomes of Students with Special Needs
[27] Hayes, N. (2012). Has constructivism increased
special-education enrollment in public schools? Retrieved
from www.
http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/12/28/2
015.
[28] Mayer, R. E., (2004). Should there be a three-strike rule
against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist,
59(1), 13-20.
[29] Kirschner, P. A. & Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why
minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An
analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery,
problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching.
Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-78.
[30] Clements, D. H. & Battista, M. T. (1990). Constructivist
learning and teaching. Arithmetic Teacher, 38(1), 34-35.
[31] Marzo, R. J. (2011). Art and science of teaching: The perils
and promises of discovery learning. Educational Leadership,
86-87.
[32] Tobias, S. & Duffy, M. D. (2009). Constructivist instruction:
Success or failure? New York, NY: Routledge.
[33] Kain, D. (2003). Teacher-centered versus student-centered:
Balancing constraint and theory in the composition classroom.
Pedagogy 3(1), 104-108.
[34] Boaler, J. (2001).Mathematical modeling and new theories of
learning. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications, 20(3),
121-128.
[35] Rees, S., & Skidmore, D. (2008). The classical classroom:
Enhancing Learning for Pupils with Acquired Brain Injury
(ABI). Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 8(2)
88-95.
[36] Watson, J. (2001). Social constructivism: Social
constructivism in the classroom. Support for learning,
[Electronic-version] 16(3), 140-147. Retrieved June 16, 2015
from Electronic Journal Center.
[37] Kirp, D. L. (2015). No Child Left Behind Retrieved from: The
New York Time: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/tim
estopics/subjects/n/no_child_left_behind_act/index.html 30
December, 2015
[38] U. S. Congress.(1988). U. S. Congress, Pub. L. No. 100-407.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act
2004.
[39] Battenfeld & Crowford (2015).Why public education id
failing. Retrieved from:
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/34080-every-student-
Succeeds-act-still-leaves-most-vulnerable-kids-behind 30
December 2015.
[40] Rowman & Littlefeld, 2015[39]. Why public education is
failing. Retrieved from: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailin
g.blogspot.com/2012/04/has-constructivism-increased-specia
l.html. 30 December 2015.